Shri Lashmon Pyngrope vs . North Eastern Electric Power
2022 Latest Caselaw 578 Meg

 Serial No. 04
 Supplementary List
                 HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
                       AT SHILLONG
WP(C) No. 414 of 2022
                               Date of Decision: 11.10.2022

Shri Lashmon Pyngrope               Vs. North Eastern Electric Power
                                        Corporation Limited & Ors.

Coram:
              Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge


Appearance:
For the Petitioner(s)       :     Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, Sr. Adv. with
                                  Ms. A. Kharshiing, Adv.

For the Respondent(s)       :     Mr. V.K. Jindal, Sr. Adv. with

Mr. V. Kumar, Adv.

i)    Whether approved for reporting in                      Yes/No
      Law journals etc:

ii)   Whether approved for publication                       Yes/No
      in press:

                   JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. The writ petitioner is before this Court assailing the transfer

order dated 16.09.2022, by which he has been transferred on promotion

to Arunachal Pradesh as Sr. Executive Supervisor.

2. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that he is left

with less than 2 years in service, and as per the Transfer Policy of the

respondent Corporation at clause 11.7 it provides that, employees due

for superannuation within a period of 2(two) years shall normally be

considered for posting at locations of their choice or nearest to their

hometown. In this regard, it is noted that the writ petitioner has also

preferred a representation as provided in the Policy itself for

reconsideration of his transfer. Further, it is noted that the said

representation is still pending consideration, but in the meantime a

release order dated 29.09.2022 has since been issued.

3. Mr. H.L. Shangreiso, learned Senior counsel assisted by

Ms. A. Kharshiing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

respondent Corporation is to abide by the Transfer Policy, inasmuch as,

though the transfer may be a transfer on promotion, the same is liable

to be reconsidered and interfered with by this Court.

4. Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. V.

Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation has drawn the

attention of this Court to the relevant provision of the Transfer Policy,

especially clause 7, which deals with cases relating to transfer on

promotion and submits that if the petitioner is willing to forego the

promotion and by operation of the Rule itself, he shall not be transferred

to another location for a period of 1(one) year.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is seen that the matter is not a case of transfer on exigency

but a transfer on promotion of the writ petitioner to a higher post, and

the petitioner from the materials on record is not willing to forego his

promotion. Further, it is also noted that the representation which has

been preferred, as per the communication dated 28.09.2022 issued by

the competent authority has not yet been considered.

7. In this backdrop considering the Transfer Policy and as the

matter concerns the transfer on promotion, this Court is not inclined to

interfere with the transfer and the release orders which are impugned

herein. However, it is directed that the respondent Corporation shall

dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of 2(two)

weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Further,

considering the personal situation of the petitioner, it is expected that

the respondent Corporation will look at the representation

sympathetically.

8. With the above noted directions, this writ petition stands

closed and is accordingly disposed of.

JUDGE

Meghalaya 11.10.2022 "V. Lyndem-PS"